A critical event—crisis—may dramatically impact an organization. Complying with federal regulations and guidelines, an organization typically has a business continuity plan (BCP)—a process of developing advance arrangements and procedures that enable an organization to respond to an event in such a manner that critical business functions continue with planned levels of interruption or essential change. Often, the BCP is primarily designed to recover, reestablish technical data damaged or lost during a critical event and typically provides a gradual execution of steps that may span over A prolonged period of time. A variety of technological systems are capable of ensuring the .continuity of service and support for business customers and to maintain its viability before, after and during an event.
Actions that have to be undertaken within first sixty (60) minutes after a crisis event has occured are usually described in an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). One of the most critical parts of EAP is monitoring evacuation and providing headcount of all employees, visitors and contractors associated with a crisis event site, such as a building.
Traditionally, methods for accounting people during a crisis event have been conducted by manual count, word and by other outdated techniques avoiding the use of technologically advanced communication systems. The manual crisis headcount process may have a few disadvantages. First, the manual process is open to human error. People tend to forget who they verbally communicate with rather rapidly; visual memory is also often unreliable. Secondly, without an automated integrated solution to the headcount problem, a crisis management team faces a lengthy and laborious course of action to gather information regarding those who are present at an alternate site and those who are not, but are supposed to be present. Thirdly, the manual process is particularly ineffective to account for those employees who were supposed to be at work but, for a variety of reasons, did not come in on the day of crisis.
Thus, the known methods of head counting during a crisis event are unreliable, ineffective and unable to meet the federal regulations requiring that that all people working at or visiting a site in crisis be accounted for in real time not exceeding sixty minutes after the crisis event.
Several attempts have been made to partially automate headcount processes during a crisis event but were not particularly successful. One of numerous reasons for such a relative failure is that electronically operated wiring systems are some of the first affected by critical events, such as fire, flood and other natural and/or man-caused disasters. The other reason is that these systems are relatively complex. A person, particularly a person under the stress, may be disoriented and not able to perform necessary actions requiring actuating an electronic device or system.
A need, therefore, exists for fully automated and integrated (intelligent) real time headcount systems that are capable of accounting for all persons associated with a site, such as employees, contractors and visitors, which is struck by a critical event in first sixty minutes.
Another need exists for intelligent real time headcount systems that are operable to account for all persons including those employees who have not reported to work on the day of a crisis event before, during and after the crisis event.
A further need exists for intelligent real time headcount systems that are operable to track unaccounted. for persons and train an alert signal to locations associated with the tracked persons in real time.
Still a further need exists for intelligent real time headcount systems that have a simple and reliable configuration and are capable of operating independently from an IT system of a crisis event site.